to think wanting to overthrow capitalism is not an extreme political stance

[chomalungma]

New school guidance issued last week for education.

www.gov.uk/guidance/plan-your-relationships-sex-and-health-curriculum#choosing-resources

Issued last Thursday, the guidance reads: “Schools should not under any circumstances use resources produced by organisations that take extreme political stances on matters.
“Examples of extreme political stances include, but are not limited to: a publicly stated desire to abolish or overthrow democracy, capitalism, or to end free and fair elections, opposition to the right of freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of assembly or freedom of religion and conscience

There are alternatives to capitalism. People may not like them, I don't necessarily agree with them - but I don't think it's an extreme political stance to take.

Yet the Government think it is.

Are people who think that there alternatives to capitalism taking an extreme political stance?

USSR is not an example of communist country (and similar to capitalism political system in Soviet Union also had different phases during its time) nor is China.

Nietzsche was used by Hitler and Marx by Stalin. Without understanding of Marxism discussion about communism and USSR is a nonsense.

In 80' protest in Gdansk were started by workers who wanted exactly those things that Marx proposed such as workers controlling resources etc.

What happened in USSR is far away from Marxism - it was monopolisation of capital by one particular group so called Party or whatever. Today Russia operates in a very similar way.

Is capitalism bad? Tell me what period you want to discuss. Although, to be honest, everything after Reagonomics and Thatcherism is tainted and we need to change direction asap.

‘A book about the end of capitalism can be discussed if it is not from an organisation that is using it as propaganda.’

The Communist Manifesto was commissioned by the Communist League. The various Communist parties currently operating in the U.K. are the Communist League; they have just had various name changes due to factionalism.

You therefore could not use any material from the Communist Manifesto, which would be absurd.

@Stripesgalore

‘A book about the end of capitalism can be discussed if it is not from an organisation that is using it as propaganda.’

The Communist Manifesto was commissioned by the Communist League. The various Communist parties currently operating in the U.K. are the Communist League; they have just had various name changes due to factionalism.

You therefore could not use any material from the Communist Manifesto, which would be absurd.

Which is why I said active organisation. And no you can’t have a faction come in with resources and their propaganda.

History and literature are obviously still allowed in schools.

I don’t see why it’s hard to distinguish between what is possible and what is not.

Having read some of the views from an organisation on ending capitalism I prefer that isn’t disseminated in the classroom.

Active organisations have a history.

The Communist Manifesto is a book written in the 19th century for a still active extremist organisation.

Which would mean it cannot be quoted from under these rules.

Unless you are saying there is a cut off date.

You can’t quote from an organisation’s material if it is from this week but you can if it is from 2015? 1989? 1905?

When is the cut off point?

Yes you can quote from the manifesto and discuss it

No you can’t have an organisation in delivering their propaganda to students nor take their resource and give it to students

So you can use material from active organisations, but only by quoting it?

If someone doing their A levels brought in an actual copy of the Communist Manifesto, you would have to confiscate it?

It’s getting a bit like in the 80s when actors spoke the words of the IRA on tv.

No they wouldn’t have to confiscate it. I said quote as you referred to that.

So you are allowed to use material from current extremist organisations then, because the manifesto is exactly that.

It’s pretty obvious why it is there, I’m sure schools / teachers can navigate around it even if some pp can’t.

Teachers shouldn’t have to navigate around it. It should be clear and specific, like the updated advice on gender stereotyping.

Are you a teacher? Do you find it difficult?

I wouldn’t. I would not allow propaganda from extreme organisations in the classroom.

I don’t think it is merely that people don’t understand that communist parties still exist, I think it is that like to have some kind of cognitive dissonance that communism is in some sense a historical event with no actual connection to the present.

This is despite there being millions of people currently living in communist countries, and mass immigration to the U.K. from current or former communist countries, as well as continuous tradition of communism and socialism here.

‘Are you a teacher? Do you find it difficult?

I wouldn’t. I would not allow propaganda from extreme organisations in the classroom.’

You seem to be finding it really difficult to understand the guidance, as you keep contradicting yourself.

When it comes to talking about capitalism and democracy, we don’t have pure forms of either anywhere whatsoever in the world, so they don’t exactly exist to be overthrown in the first place...

@Stripesgalore

‘Are you a teacher? Do you find it difficult?

I wouldn’t. I would not allow propaganda from extreme organisations in the classroom.’

You seem to be finding it really difficult to understand the guidance, as you keep contradicting yourself.

Not at all.

I wouldn’t find it hard to follow. Having read current anti capitalist propaganda recently from organisations I can see that is not wanted in the classroom. I find it easy to get. You don’t.

Other posters have said the same. It is obvious why it is there.

The guidance doesn’t say that the material has to be recent, so you are making up your own guidelines, not adhering to those given.

Ok you interpret it your way (glad you’re not acting on it) but I bet teachers will be fine and understand it.

The use of the term overthrow with its revolutionary implications is an acknowledgement that this has zero democratic mandate.

There’s basically no point coming on to a thread to make ad hominem attacks Marsha. If you’re not here to discuss the statement quoted in the OP, what’s the point?

We are all aware material exists that should never be shown in schools. OP is asking about a specific sentence within that and what could be excluded by it.

I am here to discuss it. That’s why I posted.

Initially I was going to say it seemed surprising but the recalled a blurb from an organisation with anti capitalist agenda and as I said I understood why it was included.

When I was at school we studied communism/ socialism (as well as other societies) in practice and the effects it had in the economies and the life of people under it. We discussed and debated the different rights people had, how laws were made and people’s freedom. Also how it worked in reality (under communism some people get very rich and have a lot of power over people who are treated like slaves).

Get the kids to study and debate. I’ve worked with people from ex communist states and they have some horror stories (people ‘disappearing’ after making comments at family gatherings, lack of freedom, state having control over your life)...

No doubt capitalism leads to inequality, but then so does every single system we ever tried.

The free market does produce wealth and It has lifted billions of people out of poverty. It is unfairly shared and the profit motive causes Massive environmental damage and encourages the worst in humanity. It also produces excess wealth which many many people voluntarily choose to support charities who do fantastic work, donate to food banks etc. Now you could say people shouldn't have to use food banks and I do agree , however where do we get the money from to ensure they don't have to ? The Welfare State is only possible through capitalism.

IMO it's the least bad of the bad options We have at the moment, it's intrinsically linked to freedom.

It can evolve and that would be better than starting from scratch without a alternative that actually works. Having a money free world would require everyone to be involved in doing things for the good of society - but who decides that? As a species we are not evolved enough to figure this out yet - it's ridiculously complicated but as I see it at the moment it comes down to two choices ;

Free markets Supported by property rights and democracy.

State controlled economy supported by coercion in one form or another

My ideal would be - a free market with basic level of wealth ( food shelter clothing) and people voluntarily donating excess wealth Above a certain limit. That's never going to happen

Yes, China’s one child policy is on the Geography curriculum, as are working conditions in China’s factories.